The accuracy of titanium contrast-enhanced mammography: a retrospective multicentric study.

BACKGROUND: Recently, a new mammography system to perform contrast-enhanced mammography has become available in the market. For the high-energy acquisition, it uses a titanium filter instead of a copper one, reducing the tube load while maintaining image quality. PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the accuracy of contrast-enhanced mammography with a titanium filter (TiCEM) in three readers with different grades of experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: IRB-approved retrospective multicentric lesion by lesion study with 200 lesions, all of them initially classified as BI-RADS categories 0/3/4/5 on mammography and/or ultrasound and with pathological confirmation, in 135 patients. Three readers with different levels of experience (expert, resident, intermediate) blinded to the final diagnosis, retrospectively evaluated the low-energy (LE) images and the combination of LE and recombined (subtracted) images and classified the lesions according to the BI-RADS categories. Reader 1 also categorized the breast density. ROC curves were performed for each reader. RESULTS: Out of the 200 lesions, 82 were benign and 118 malignant (20 DCIS, 10 ILC, 88 IDC). The AUCs of LE versus TiCEM for were: Reader 1: 0.7 vs. 0.88, P < 0.001; Reader 2: 0.63 vs. 0.83, P < 0.001; and Reader 3: 0.63 vs. 0.84, P < 0.001. For the three readers, the AUCs of LE versus TiCEM were significantly superior in both dense and non-dense breasts (P < 0.001). Comparing the AUC of LE for Reader 1 (expert) versus the AUC of TiCEM for Reader 2 (resident) there were significant differences (0.7 vs. 0.83, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The accuracy of TiCEM was significantly better for all the readers, in both dense and non-dense breasts. The accuracy of a resident reading a TiCEM study was better than the accuracy of an expert radiologist reading LE images.

Is it worth to perform preoperative MRI for breast cancer after mammography, tomosynthesis and ultrasound?

BACKGROUND: The use of preoperative breast MRI remains controversial despite being the most sensitive technique for the detection of breast malignancies. PURPOSE: To evaluate the benefit of preoperative breast MRI after performing the three conventional techniques (DM, US, DBT). To analyze the influence of breast density in the sensitivity of the different imaging techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 280 histologically confirmed breast cancers in 192 women. We reviewed the medical records and evaluated the change of treatment induced by MRI. Also, we assessed the reports of DM and the combination of the different imaging techniques, and categorized them according to ACR density (a-d) and as negative (BI-RADS 1-3) or positive (BIRADS 4 or 5). The gold standard was the pathologic assessment of the surgical specimen. The sensitivity of the different techniques was compared using McNemar test. RESULTS: Among these 192 women the use of MRI did not significantly increase the mastectomy rate (from 16.6% to 17.6%; p = 0.5). The addition of any technique demonstrated a higher sensitivity than DM alone. The sensitivity of DM alone was 52.5% while using all the techniques, including MRI, was 94.3% (p < 0.001). Regardless of breast density pattern, the addition of any technique significantly increased the sensitivity of DM (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of MRI to the three conventional techniques increased the sensitivity but did not significantly modify the rate of mastectomies. Additional techniques increased the sensitivity of DM in both dense and non-dense breasts.